Population growth is largely self-limiting in developed ("1st world") countries. Unchecked population growth only ultimately leads to the saturation of Earth as a habitable space, regardless of its cause. So clearly growth without limit is untenable, and any system that relies on it as a fundamental principle is not sustainable long-term. One can make the argument that it might make sense as a short-term strategy for various reasons, but pretending it can achieve sustainable long-term viability is not only foolish but dangerous. The physical laws of the universe itself are ultimately standing in the way, but much sooner than they will rear their head the limitations of our own comparatively tiny world and resources will do so. Not acknowledging that eventual reality and *planning for it* is irresponsible in the extreme. Our current economic models have no answer or solution to that "end game".

That still doesn't address the fact that there is no limit on population growth. It's all well and good to say that population growth is limited in 1st world countries, but if you go to extremely rural or extremely urban areas of the U.S., it would quickly become evident that this is not true. And I wasn't saying that there shouldn't be a limit on economic growth- only that limiting it without limiting population growth takes the ability of any limited economic system to support the (still) growing population.

I was listening to a Coca-Cola marketing rep say how they plan to double their business. The term she was talking about wasn't clear, but it wasn't in sync with population growth. There's a disparity there. And I think they're pretty representative of the general sentiment of infinite growth.

In that stat map, you can set it to find out the number of children per woman. The results are not what you'd think. The videos also go through that and explain it in detail.

Sure, food supply, water supply, and population growth are issues to be conscious of, but the numbers just don't support the infinite growth expectancy of "modern" economics. Birth rates worldwide have declined with some countries experiencing negative population growth that is only off-set by immigration, legal or otherwise.

It seems that the point I am making is being missed, either through my inability to communicate it, or some other reason. It seems obvious if there is already a disproportionate distribution of wealth, that if there is a limit placed on the economic growth without placing a similar limit on population growth, the haves will accumulate more, while the have nots won't- and infinite population growth is not a necessity to make this happen. But I guess not.

It seems that the point I am making is being missed, either through my inability to communicate it, or some other reason. It seems obvious if there is already a disproportionate distribution of wealth, that if there is a limit placed on the economic growth without placing a similar limit on population growth, the haves will accumulate more, while the have nots won't- and infinite population growth is not a necessity to make this happen. But I guess not.

It seems obvious if there is already a disproportionate distribution of wealth, that if there is a limit placed on the economic growth without placing a similar limit on population growth, the haves will accumulate more, while the have nots won't- and infinite population growth is not a necessity to make this happen.

I don't think a limit on economic growth necessarily leads to only the haves increasing their wealth. If there's a steady stream of wealth being added to the system, then even if it is a "trickle-down", the have-nots can still benefit from the increased wealth. It seems to me that it's only a matter of how much of the increase in wealth is distributed to whom.

The infinite growth model just seems to be like a fool-hardy Icarus soaring ever higher towards the sun.